LSAT fees going up Forum

[Scotusnerd]

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2549418909

Glad I took it when I did! Yikes.

[dolfan0516]

Glad I took it when I did! Yikes.

[LSAT Blog]

I wrote that story on Tuesday:

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ls ... e-why.html

Funny how hers uses the same source as mine (an LSAC report from December) and came out the day after...

[Gail]

when demand goes down, usually you want to increase value, not prices.


but be stupid, i guess.

[LSAT Blog]

when demand goes down, usually you want to increase value, not prices.


but be stupid, i guess.

It's a strange market where the seller jacks up the price in response to plummeting demand.

[Oklahoma2014]

when demand goes down, usually you want to increase value, not prices.


but be stupid, i guess.

It doesn't have to work that way when you have zero competition and a guaranteed customer base. I mean, is anyone really going to choose on passing up the law school application process just because of the increased costs? I doubt it, or at least not many will.

[BVest]

If it were an open market, perhaps. But LSAC has a monopoly and can therefore set the price as they choose, largely ignoring demand. After all, the actual demand in the market is for attending as high a quality law school as possible and the value is in post-graduation salary potential, which dwarfs LSAC's pricing. Because of that, LSAC can simply divide their total annual budget dependent on LSAT fees by the number of applicants signing up for the LSAT to arrive at the LSAT fee, and they can do this without concern that their move will have an impact on the number of applicants.

ETA: Beat to the punch. Type faster BVest.

[Mr. Pancakes]

I wonder if they will alter their standards for gaining fee waivers too.

[2014]

when demand goes down, usually you want to increase value, not prices.


but be stupid, i guess.

It's a strange market where the seller jacks up the price in response to plummeting demand.

I'm guessing they view their product as being relatively inelastic. If they can increase the price by 15% and test takers only go down by say like 7% next year then LSAC made a good business call. If on the other hand like you said on their blog they go with the typical idea of reducing price to increase test takers and they say reduce it by 15% for an increase in 7% or whatever then they lose more money. Or alternatively if they leave the price the same and test takers continue to go down, their revenue continues to drop.

I think you make a good point though about law schools needing to step up and fund some of the loss. LSAC probably could care less how many applicants there are as long as they can price it in such a way that their profits remain steady or increase. It is the law schools who are interested in getting application numbers back up.

[hung jury]

when demand goes down, usually you want to increase value, not prices.


but be stupid, i guess.

It's a strange market where the seller jacks up the price in response to plummeting demand.

I'm guessing they view their product as being relatively inelastic. If they can increase the price by 15% and test takers only go down by say like 7% next year then LSAC made a good business call. If on the other hand like you said on their blog they go with the typical idea of reducing price to increase test takers and they say reduce it by 15% for an increase in 7% or whatever then they lose more money. Or alternatively if they leave the price the same and test takers continue to go down, their revenue continues to drop.

I think you make a good point though about law schools needing to step up and fund some of the loss. LSAC probably could care less how many applicants there are as long as they can price it in such a way that their profits remain steady or increase. It is the law schools who are interested in getting application numbers back up.

I.e., law school/theLSAT is more like dope than photocopies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COf2bQEQ7Zw

[LSAT Blog]

It is the law schools who are interested in getting application numbers back up.

This is why I think they should be doing what they can to encourage a greater number of applications and applicants, rather than sitting back as sending out additional applications becomes more expensive, etc. Further barriers to entry are the last thing law schools need right now.

[ThreeRivers]

The price of the test compared to other tests really isn't bad at all.

It was the fucking $16 fee for every app (which they've increased to $21)

Plus the $124 just to use CAS was $124 (now $155)

That's ridiculous


Just charge me $200 for everything and I'd be fine

[indo]

I wrote that story on Tuesday:

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ls ... e-why.html

Funny how hers uses the same source as mine (an LSAC report from December) and came out the day after...

she copied ypur lol

[LSAT Blog]

The price of the test compared to other tests really isn't bad at all.

It was the fucking $16 fee for every app (which they've increased to $21)

Plus the $124 just to use CAS was $124 (now $155)

That's ridiculous


Just charge me $200 for everything and I'd be fine

But the other major tests for graduate admissions are computer-based. I believe that's the ostensible reason for their relatively higher cost.

I suspect that the fee increase for the CAS law school reports (the one going from $16 to $21) may lead some people to apply to fewer schools.